I see no value in atheism

[JoStories]

Do you think opinion is fact? I'm pretty sure that every materialist respects the difference between fact and opinion.

Thank you love. Once again you have spoken for me.

 

[ArtieE]

Does not follow. You can make an opinion that it is wrong, that the agency of the decisions is evil.

So what? Me having a different opinion doesn't mean that he's doing anything wrong. So he's not doing anything wrong and I have no right to stop him.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So what? Me having a different opinion doesn't mean that he's doing anything wrong. So he's not doing anything wrong and I have no right to stop him.

When you have the opinion it's wrong you can stop him.

You are talking complete nonsense for weeks on end.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are talking complete nonsense for weeks on end.

You owe me one irony meter.

 

[leibowde84]

We are just discussing your desire for sham absolute confidence by asserting good and evil as fact. That is why you come up with science possibly destroying opinion, but not come up with religion possibly destroying fact.

"Desire for sham"? What does that mean? How would you know my desires?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You owe me one irony meter.

All evolutionists are social darwinists regarding what is good and evil and ironic as fact.

 

[leibowde84]

All evolutionists are social darwinists regarding what is good and evil and ironic as fact.

That isn't true because their are a plethora (the majority of evolutionists actually) that believe in God and the supernatural. Most "evolutionists" are theists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All evolutionists are social darwinists regarding what is good and evil and ironic as fact.

That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.

 

[leibowde84]

That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.

I think he is happier living in his delusion where all atheists, materialists, evolutionists, etc. all think exactly the same way and have exactly the same beliefs. Tragic really.

Not to mention the disrespectful tones, but what are ya gonna do.

 

[ArtieE]

When you have the opinion it's wrong you can stop him.

Of course I can't. According to you he's not doing anything wrong. He's just of a different opinion than I am.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Desire for sham"? What does that mean? How would you know my desires?

Because it is a general human temptation to spike confidence illegitemately with factual certitude about what is good and evil. And the way you talk about things it is clear you are deep into it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Of course I can't. According to you he's not doing anything wrong. He's just of a different opinion than I am.

Is complete nonsense. Somebody making the opinion something is good does not preclude you from making the opinion it is evil.

All just drugtaking on your part, there is no argument whatsoever.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's weird, because I accept evolution and yet I am not a social Darwinist. Guess you're wrong, then.

You reject subjectivity, you reject any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. It means inevitably your interpretation of natural selection must be social darwinism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You reject subjectivity, you reject any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. It means inevitably your interpretation of natural selection must be social darwinism.

Nope. I didn't. How'd that happen?

 

[leibowde84]

Because it is a general human temptation to spike confidence illegitemately with factual certitude about what is good and evil. And the way you talk about things it is clear you are deep into it.

Why do you feel it so obvious that I am "deep into it" specifically? What did I say?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. I didn't. How'd that happen?

You too reject subjectivity I remember.

Making for this general atmosphere on the forum, where anything established on a subjective basis is attacked as wrong, because it is not objectivity.

Objectivity get's a free pass, because all religionists also accept objectivity, besides accepting subjectivity But evolutionists do not accept subjectivity. They deny freedom is real, and they demand evidence in regards to questions about what the agency of a decision is. There is no atmosphere of safeguarded freedom of opinion, there is attack of any opinion to try to replace it with fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you feel it so obvious that I am "deep into it" specifically? What did I say?

I already explained that before how I reached the conclusion. You go read what I wrote before to you.

 

[leibowde84]

You too reject subjectivity I remember.

Making for this general atmosphere on the forum, where anything established on a subjective basis is attacked as wrong, because it is not objectivity.

Objectivity get's a free pass, because all religionists also accept objectivity, besides accepting subjectivity But evolutionists do not accept subjectivity. They deny freedom is real, and they demand evidence in regards to questions about what the agency of a decision is. There is no atmosphere of safeguarded freedom of opinion, there is attack of any opinion to try to replace it with fact.

I agree, subjective truths can exist, they are just often incorrect or misleading. Also they don't do much good for anyone but yourself.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You too reject subjectivity I remember.

Making for this general atmosphere on the forum, where anything established on a subjective basis is attacked as wrong, because it is not objectivity.

Objectivity get's a free pass, because all religionists also accept objectivity, besides accepting subjectivity But evolutionists do not accept subjectivity. They deny freedom is real, and they demand evidence in regards to questions about what the agency of a decision is. There is no atmosphere of safeguarded freedom of opinion, there is attack of any opinion to try to replace it with fact.

You said if you accept evolution you reject subjectivity. I haven't rejected subjectivity. You say I have. And now you state that if I reject subjectivity I must be a social Darwinist. I am highly against social dawinism as I am the opposite which is a secular humanist. For this to be your logic must be faulty somewhere. My guess is ...everywhere.

 

[leibowde84]

I already explained that before how I reached the conclusion. You go read what I wrote before to you.

You did a terrible job, merely providing vague insults to my character and failing to provide a single specific example. Please provide reasoning for your erroneous assumption so I can point out why you are mistaken.